Chris Russo wrote:
> >Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Emlyn wrote:
> >> > > The problem is that we are equating consciousness with
> >information.
> >> > > I don't think that it is information.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Is a computer program information? Yes, when looked at statically as
> >> bits, no when considered dynamically running in some system.
> >
> >Exactly! And consciousness it the running program (process), or even an
> >emergent property of the process, and not in any way is it the program
> >itself. Techies metaphor: One program, run twice, yields two distinct
> >processes.
>
> As a computer engineer, I'm going to have to put my foot down here.
> I think that you're assuming that since you don't understand how
> something could be done, that you think that it can't be done.
I assume that you are assuming assumptions. When you assume, you make an
"ass" of "u" and "me", don't you know? Or I assume so, in any case.
What's a computer engineer? Is that a dude that designs hardware? Or is it a
fancy name for cable monkey?
>
> In fact, you can stop a running process and store it as information.
> What do you think happens when you put most laptops to sleep? All of
> the relevant processes running are swapped out to disk along with
> their states along with everything else in RAM, as well of the
> registers and caches of the CPU and any relevant I/O device.
>
> You could remove the hard drive from that first machine and duplicate
> it exactly. Then, you could take both hard drives and put them back
> in identical laptops and "wake" them. They would both be running all
> the same programs you were - all at the same point of execution
> points as when you put them to sleep. Which was the original? Who
> cares?
This is where the metaphor of Consciousness is Computer Process falls down.
Of course, a process can be swapped out and in (and is routinely, under a
multiprocessing OS), switching from a running "thing" to information and
back again. The external observer cares not at all about these interruptions
to the processes' "continuous identity"; it makes no functional difference.
Also, the process itself cares not a whit, because it has no means to; it is
not conscious, after all, so how could the concept of caring mean anything?
However, a conscious being is another kettle of fish. Being swapped in and
out may be a problem for a conscious being; interesting ramifications for
hardware & OS design for upload sim environments.
I am contending that consciousness is not information; it's a thing that
exists in some way. A process in a computer is not information; its a stream
of activity undertaken by a physical machine. It is very closely described
by information; a dump of the contents of the memory that it is using, the
registers, OS tables of IO states, etc. However, it is not that description,
and it is not the file or process table entry or whatever, that is stored
while it is swapped out. It is not even the contents of it's memory
addresses and the registers, and all that guff, while it is running; it is
the actual things being done while it is running, as a result of those
contents. Atoms flowing around, gates doing gatey stuff, hardrives whizzing,
stuff happening. Not information.
>
> Assuming that human beings are just biological computers, it should
> eventually be possible to use the same techniques once we work out
> all of the neurochemical details.
Undoubtedly this is possible, undoubtedly this will work, especially from
the point of view of the engineers & admins building and running such
systems (ie: from the outside). What will the subjective experience be for
those so encoded, however?
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:35 MDT